Update: The correct episode is now available. Use the player above or click here to get it. If you use iTunes, delete the current episode and re-load the feed.

This week, we go to the barricades to defend religious freedom. We’re joined by Piero Tozzi from the Alliance Defending Freedom (formerly the Alliance Defense Fund), an organization on the front lines of the battle. We explore the original understanding of the Establishment Clause as a federalism provision and not – as it has become – a requirement of radical secularism. We also talk about the Free Exercise clause, and how “progressives” have cast it aside. Finally, Piero treats us to a lively discussion of the culture of death, and why the preservation of religion is so important. It’s everything you wanted to know about sects, but were afraid to ask!

Group Captain Mandrake: Adam, would you say that e-mails are included in “persons, houses, papers and effects” as stipulated in the Fourth Amendment? · 4 hours ago

Absolutely. I subscribe to original meaning, but in order to apply that meaning to present day facts, we sometimes have to account for advances in technology. Similarly, the Second Amendment should not be limited to flintlock rifles – it protects contemporary equivalents.

I need to dispute a point that your friend, Mr. Tozzi, made. I don’t disagree with him that there is no SSM right in the constitution, and he is correct that it would be overbearing, and very not libertarian, for government to require you and him to get a license and to register your friendship. But it is a poor analogy.

If you are in an opposite sex relationship you are not required to get married, and I think it would be wrong to force you, even though I think getting married might not be a bad idea. And you don’t have to get a government license if you do choose to think of yourself as married, and have a ceremony and all that. The reason we do that when we marry is because married couples are treated differently by government than are non-married couples. They are given certain legal protections and benefits, for example, you can’t be forced to testify against your spouse, if your spouse is a foreign citizen you can get him or her a visa more easily than otherwise. There are legitimate reason that gay people would want these perks.

As for the government’s interest in recognizing same sex marriage, and I think they do have an interest, I think to win the argument the burden is more on opponents to point out why government has an interest in not recognizing SSM. And not trying to argue that it is not necessary.

When a gay couple asks for a marriage license and the same legal treatment as other marriages, why should the government say no?

I enjoyed the podcast as always. However, as significant to religious freedom issues as are same sex marriage and health insurance mandates, I was a little disappointed to hear no discussion about the tension between the ideal of religious freedom and the use of religious freedom to harbor and protect the violent plans of religious zealots to kill infidels and impose their religion on everyone else. If jihad is a religious obligation, when do constitutional protections for expressions exhorting jihad end? To what extent may governments in the United States infiltrate the their religious institutions for protection of the general public?

To me, the conflict between violent Islamist and the rest of us is high on the list of challenges under the First Amendment.